But what exactly do
we mean when we talk about “freedom of religion”? Increasingly, secularists are
attempting (and succeeding) to redefine freedom of religion as simply “freedom of
worship”.

In this piece
for US website, the Christian Post, David Cortman of the Alliance Defence Fund,
which defends religious freedom outlines exactly why this redefinition is very
ominious for religious freedom properly understood.

He asks: “[W]hen
people….replace the words “freedom of religion” with “freedom of worship,” is
it just a distinction without a difference, or is it a major change about which
we need to be concerned?”

“In order to explain
what amounts to tremendous differences between the two phrases, let me offer a
recent example. In Colorado, a religious freedom amendment to the state
constitution has been proposed that prohibits the government from ‘burden[ing] a
person’s or religious organisation’s freedom of religion’ unless it shows a
compelling interest – which offers the highest level of protection.

“Compare that to the
proposed language submitted by a far-left group which begins: ‘Religious
freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed.’

“Sounds okay, doesn’t
it? Or does it? Did you notice that freedom of religion quickly became religious
worship? But there is more:

‘In assessing whether
government has burdened freedom of religion, a person’s or a religious
organisation’s right to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious
belief is the ability to engage in religious practices in the privacy of a
person’s home or in the privacy of a religious organisation’s established place
of worship.’”

What this amounts to
is the privatisation of religion, the banishment of religion from the public
square. It is the same mentality which would
withdraw State funding from denominational schools or would all but prevent them
from being denominational in any meaningful way, and which believes (like
our former Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern) that religion “clouds our
judgement”.

Cortman continues:
“Freedom of religion encompasses many beliefs and actions, obviously including
worship. But this rhetorical shift of limiting freedom of religion to only
worship embodies a dangerous ideology that is shared by the current
administration.

“Ironically, the
former Soviet Union – a self described atheistic country – allowed ‘freedom of
worship’ but not ‘freedom of religion’.

Cortman outlines a
number of examples of how President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton have used the same ‘freedom of worship’ rhetoric, and some concrete
examples of how they have showed a disdain for the freedom of religion, such as

• Requiring religious
  organisations to provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives free of
  charge.
• Requiring individuals
  to pay a surcharge to fund abortions.
• Overturning HHS
  protections for religious health care workers not to be forced to participate in
  abortions.
• Appointing radical
  activist Chai Feldblum as a commissioner to a Government equality body-who
  recently stated that when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she has
  “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should
  win.”
• Refusing to enforce
  the Defence of Marriage Act.
• Removing non-profit
  work that relates to “religious instruction” from the student loan forgiveness
  programme.
• Arguing recently at
  the Supreme Court that the government can interfere with the internal operations
  of religious organisations.

Religious freedom is
about far more than religious worship and private devotion. Religion, for people
of faith, animates both the public and private life. Laws which fail to
acknowledge this aspect of religion don’t respect religious freedom.